Senator Elizabeth Warren has proposed a wealth tax equal to 2 percent of net worth above $50 million and 6 percent of net worth above $1 billion, which her campaign estimates would raise $3.75 trillion over 10 years.
PWBM estimates that the proposal would raise about $2.7 trillion over fiscal years 2021-2030, not including macroeconomic effects. Including macroeconomic effects, PWBM estimates that the proposal would raise about $2.3 trillion over the same period.
PWBM projects that the proposal would reduce GDP by 0.9 percent in 2050 under the standard budget scoring convention that additional revenues reduce the deficit. If the revenues were instead spent on public investments, PWBM projects GDP in 2050 would fall between 1.0 and 2.1 percent, depending on the productivity of the investment. Average hourly wages in the economy in 2050, including wages earned by households not directly subject to the wealth tax, would fall between 0.8 and 2.3 percent due to the reduction in private capital formation.
We estimate the budgetary and economic effects of increasing the top rate on long-term capital gains and qualified dividends from 20 percent to 24.2 percent, which is enacted on January 1st, 2021. We project that it will raise around $60 billion of additional revenue on a conventional basis over the 10-year budget window and increase GDP by 0.1 percent by 2050.
We estimate the budgetary and economic effects of a new broad-based 1 percent value-added tax (VAT) with a progressive universal rebate calculated based on earnings, which is enacted on January 1st, 2021. We project that it will raise $700 billion of additional revenue on a conventional basis over the 10-year budget window and increase GDP by 0.8 percent by 2050.
We estimate the budgetary and economic effects of a new carbon tax of $30 per ton of emissions, which is enacted on January 1st, 2021, rising by inflation plus 5 percent through 2050. We project that it raises $1.6 trillion of additional revenue on a conventional basis over the 10-year budget window and increases GDP by 2.2 percent by 2050.
PWBM estimates that the COVID-era Employee Retention Credit (ERC) will have cost more than $300 billion when the IRS finishes processing claims later in 2025, nearly four times the initial projected cost. Most of the ERC was paid retroactively, well after pandemic-related economic disruptions had ended, limiting its effectiveness as a worker retention incentive.
The USITC recently released updated trade and tariff data. We use this data to provide up-to-date estimates of customs revenue and effective tariff rates through July 2025.
We estimate that AI will increase productivity and GDP by 1.5% by 2035, nearly 3% by 2055, and 3.7% by 2075. AI’s boost to annual productivity growth is strongest in the early 2030s but eventually fades, with a permanent effect of less than 0.04 percentage points due to sectoral shifts.
The USITC recently released updated trade and tariff data. We use this data to provide up-to-date estimates of customs revenue and effective tariff rates through June 2025.
It is well known that mass deportation reduces aggregate economic variables like GDP due to scale effects. We project that deportation also reduces wages of high-skill workers, compromising 63% of workers. Still, authorized low-skilled workers can see their wages increase but only if the deportation policy is permanently sustained after 4 years. Even with new funds provided in the 2025 OBBBA, we estimate that permanent deportation would cost an additional $900 billion over the first 10 years.
We estimate that importers avoided 13.1 percent ($6.5 billion) of new tariffs by accelerating purchases and changing their purchasing patterns in response to the new tariff regime. Importers especially stockpiled pharmaceuticals and precious metals during 2025 Q1.
We estimate the reconciliation bill signed by President Trump increases primary deficits by $3.2 trillion over 10 years. The dynamic cost, including changes to the economy, is larger at $3.6 trillion. GDP falls by 0.3 percent in 10 years and 4.6 percent in 30 years.
We estimate the Senate-passed reconciliation bill increases primary deficits by $3.2 trillion over 10 years. The dynamic cost, including changes to the economy, is larger at $3.6 trillion. GDP falls by 0.3 percent in 10 years and 4.6 percent in 30 years.
Deporting unauthorized workers over 10 years cuts Social Security revenue, raises deficits by $133 billion (10 yrs) and $884 billion (30 yrs). The Trust Fund depletes 6 months earlier; 75-year deficit rises by 0.25% of payroll.
If spending and tax changes in the House-passed reconciliation bill are made permanent, federal debt increases by 9.9 percent in 10 years and 22.9 percent in 30 years. GDP decreases by 3.6 percent, and wages fall by 2.9 percent. Dynamic costs exceed conventional costs in the budget window.
We examine recent capital market dynamics in the context of budget reconciliation and trade policies. Understanding these dynamics requires modeling the interaction between microeconomic behavior and macroeconomic outcomes—an approach particularly well suited for the overlapping-generations lifecycle model.
We estimate the House-passed reconciliation bill increases primary deficits by $2.7 trillion over 10 years. GDP rises slightly, as labor supply and savings respond to a reduced social safety net, but the dynamic score is larger ($3.1 trillion) than the conventional.
If spending and tax changes in Reconciliation are made permanent, federal debt increases by 11.1 percent in 10 years and 24.3 percent in 30 years. GDP remains flat and wages fall by 0.5 percent. Dynamic costs exceed conventional costs in the budget window.
We estimate the House reconciliation bill increases primary deficits by $3.3 trillion over 10 years. Even so, GDP rises in the short and long term, as precautionary increases in labor supply and savings respond to a reduced social safety net.
Our previous analysis demonstrated that the Trump Administration's major tax proposals would require expiration if combined with the FY2025 House budget reconciliation. This brief considers several options to make the business tax extenders portion permanent using a combination of different horizons for spending cuts and individual tax extenders.
Under current law, the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) will expire at the end of 2025, raising personal income tax rates back to 2017 levels. Some lawmakers propose extending the TCJA but with higher rates for high-income households. We consider three options.
Treasury data through April 28 shows that tax receipts are broadly in line with government projections made earlier this year, before the downsizing of the IRS was announced. Receipts from tariffs have significantly exceeded projections.
Many trade models fail to capture the full harm of tariffs. PWBM projects Trump’s tariffs (April 8, 2025) would reduce GDP by about 8% and wages by 7%. A middle-income household faces a $58K lifetime loss. These losses are twice as large as a revenue-equivalent corporate tax increase from 21% to 36%, an otherwise highly distorting tax.
We evaluate two immigration policies that shift 10 percent of future low-skilled immigration toward either: (i) high-skilled immigrants (“HSI”) that otherwise maintains the current share of STEM workers within the high-skilled group, or (ii) only high-skilled STEM workers (“HSI STEM”) that increases the share of STEM relative to other high-skill workers. The number of total immigrants remains the same under both policies. Both policies grow the economy, reduce federal debt, and increase wages across all income groups: lower-skilled, higher-skilled non-STEM workers, and higher-skilled STEM workers. In fact, this policy change affords the rare opportunity of a “Pareto improvement” benefitting all groups.
We estimate that incorporating the Trump administration’s major tax proposals into the FY2025 House budget reconciliation would require that the provisions mostly sunset by December 31, 2033. Even so, primary deficits would increase by $5.1 trillion before economic effects and by $4.9 trillion after modest, positive economic effects. Both primary deficit estimates are larger than the cap of $2.8 trillion allowed in budget reconciliation. High-income households gain the most while lower-income households gain less or even lose, depending on how the spending cuts are distributed.
